PCP Report Feb 1994

Chris, London 100423.2040 at compuserve.com
Sun May 12 02:14:23 MDT 1996

New Flag appears to have responded promptly to my request to
publish the statement of the PCP of February 1994 which includes


For a party under attack, working clandestinely, it is an
extensive statement ideologically, politically and organisationally.

Certain formulas are debatable from a marxist point of view
- eg that "The life of communists is struggle, not pleasure."
and the emphasis as a current political emphasis, on the
shining future of Communism -
"Communism will win out and shine all over the world." -
these indicate the utopian and idealist weaknesses of which the
PCP is widely suspected.

However as a party leading an armed struggle, the main point of
looking at the statement now is to consider its response to the
attack by the government in claiming in October 1993 to have letters of
its captured leader supporting peace negotiations.

The statement starts with many quotations from Gonzalo, upholding
his political leadership of the struggle, and also criticising
capitulation and peace discussions.

After establishing this, it later refers to the
political issue by blaming the government no doubt quite rightly,
and a group of "right opportunist" capitulators who have departed
>from principle and thereby left the party.

It refers to the "so called letters" etc as a counter-revolutionary
plot. It offers no political arguments as to why any
offer of negotiations is inappropriate at this time. Peoples
War is apparently the only way.

It says in its most thoughtful passage:

>> It is an international Communist norm that one cannot lead
>from inside prison and these monstrosities are in antagonistic
oposition to principles, especially all this business about the
"peace agreement..."<<

True it is extremely difficult for a leader even as talented as Guzman
to have a good understanding of the balance of forces from inside a prison,
with the enemy controlling his sources of information and applying all
sorts of psychological and perhaps physical pressures. But there is a
large space between "leading from inside prison" and talking to
the enemy. They have not condemned the latter which suggests
some members of the Central Committee assume that Guzman did talk
to government representatives.

It is unlikely that Lenin, if imprisoned would have remained mute. It is
likely that Guzman would look for an opportunity to struggle verbally.
It is possible that some initiative he took in this way, were used as
a distorted basis for the government to approach other prisoners and to
try to create a momentum for compromise on their terms. The fact that
Arce Borja can quote a "Senderologist" saying that the government misplayed
this whole situation, does not mean that Guzman did not talk to government
representatives, while finding their terms unacceptable himself.

Nor does this mean that Avakian or RCP supporters by definition are
following a revisionist line (whatever their other weaknesses) if they
want to read the letters that Guzman is alleged to have put his name to.
Nor does it mean that in turn Adolfo and Arce Borja are  correct
to be more catholic than the Pope and wage anti-revisionist struggles
against those who wish to note that the PCP has come to its own reasons
for staying inside RIM at the moment.

So these important political contradictions are made much more difficult
and antagonistic by undialectical, idealist thinking. And this is not a
mere abstract philosophical point. We can see in front of our eyes how
the possibility of relaying information out of Peru reflecting
PCP thinking is being seriously damaged by rifts and enmities that may take
years to heal.

Can anyone now supply for the l'st, the text of the peace initiatives
that the regime claimed were associated with the name of Guzman?


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list